It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Leveller
As for the KJV of the Bible? I'm afraid that I'd have to disagree yet again. It does contain errors. There is no avoiding this fact and it has been proven to be so. This does not make it worthless and I do not denigrate the book in any way by stating this. But man was involved in the writing of this book, and unfortunately, man isn't infallible.
I believe that the KJV is the best version of the Bible that we have freely available though.
Originally posted by Valhall
Originally posted by shaunybaby
the four gospels, matthew, mark, luke and john, were written decades after jesus died. argue all you want because that is the truth. those four gospels that show jesus' life were written by people that lived after jesus died, and that also never met the messiah himself. paul the founder of christianity wrote luke, and this was the first of the four to be written. the next was 'matthew', this book was written after 'luke' for the reason that the person, who wrote matthew, didnot believe that the book 'luke' told the 'true' story of jesus in its entirity. in some parts of matthew, mark and john, which were all different versions of luke, sometimes copy word for word from luke and hold so many contradictions that we cannot get a clear idea of jesus' life from these four gospels.
[edit on 3-1-2005 by shaunybaby]
okay, I stopped reading right here, because this was wrong and I did one of those totally human things of just assuming all the rest was wrong. Mark is the oldest gospel.
Since the books themselves are undated, the order in which they were written is not absolutely clear. John McVay lists some theories:
Oral Theory: The three gospels were written independently and all based on "structured and durable oral traditions"
Augustinian Theory: The three gospels were written in the order: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; each author had access to the earlier gospels
Two Source Theory: Both Matthew and Luke based their gospels on Mark and the lost Gospel of Q.
Four Source Theory: Both Matthew and Luke based their gospels on Mark and the lost Gospel of Q. In addition, Matthew includes some material from a third source, often called "M". Luke similarly includes passages from another source, often called "L". Both L and M were probably oral traditions.
Two Gospel theory: Matthew was written first. Luke was written later and based on Matthew. Mark was written last, and based on Luke and Matthew.
Theory of Markan Priority without Q: Mark was written first. Matthew was written later and based on Mark. Luke was written last, and based on Mark and Matthew.
The Augustinian Theory was accepted by the Christian church for most of its history. The Four Source Theory is supported by most mainline and liberal theologians today.
Originally posted by Valhall
I don't agree, however, that the KJV is the "best we've got". In fact, I believe the best we've got is reading a passage in more than one translation. For instance, when I'm reading the Old Testament I read the KJV, and then I read the JPS Holy Scriptures. When I'm reading the New Testament I read the KJV, and then I read the NRSV...more specifically I tend to read it from the Greek-English interlinear version, that way I have my Greek words right there if I fill inclined to look them up.
Originally posted by shaunybaby
why would i want to read an internet bible...ive got one sitting next to my computer always. im not religious, im not a christian...the bible however, if read in a non-spiritual or non-religious way can be a great read. if you start to make sense of the bible, try to make it literal, try to see it in a religious or spiritual way, or interpret it to be inspired by god then personaly i think the book becomes flawed in many ways.
Originally posted by DrHoracid
Open your mind a little. It would appear (based on your posts) that your current reading of the Bible is only to find flaws.
Originally posted by Corinthas
One blatant flaw for people calling themselves "christian":
IT WAS NOT WRITTEN BY CHRIST!!
The new testament was written by mat, mark, luke, john et al. not jesus.
Its like trying to be a neo-nazi but reading the hitler diaries instead of mein kampf!
Originally posted by DrHoracid
Here is a link to a pretty good internet bible.
www.biblegateway.com...:22-29&version=9;
Here is a link to some translation issues.
www.answersingenesis.org...
Pray twice, take two apsrins, and call me in the morning...........
Originally posted by DrHoracid
Open your mind a little.
Originally posted by Valhall
This is kind of a vacuous argument actually. I don't believe anybody is even alleging that it was, so what is this undoing? And I think you can probably get a real good feel for the way Hitler lived his life and what commitments he made by reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich...Hitler didn't write that one either.
Originally posted by babloyi
I tried looking through the answeringgenesis site, but I could not find information in general about translation errors. Perhaps you can provide a direct link to a page with the information?
Originally posted by SpittinCobra
Originally posted by DrHoracid
Open your mind a little.
I know your not telling someone else to open thier mind.
Originally posted by Leveller
Originally posted by babloyi
I tried looking through the answeringgenesis site, but I could not find information in general about translation errors. Perhaps you can provide a direct link to a page with the information?
Maybe not a translation error but it will give you some idea of what you are up against if you are trying to study the Bible and take it literally. Take a look right at the beginning of the Bible in Genesis.
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind: and God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"
Gen 1:25,26
And the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam ... but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Gen 2:18-20
In the first passage you can clearly see that God made man after he made the animals. In the second He did so before.
Wouldn't this seem to suggest that these two passages were written by different people? How could one author make such a glaring error so early in the book!!?